/m/yankees

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

So far it appears that (1) MLB handed off $125,000 in a bag to a criminal who it appears have stolen the evidence MLB was paying for and MLB didn't report this payment to the government, and (2) MLB got into bed with Bosch who may have been dealing drugs to children, with Manfred testifying that the allegations of Bosch dealing to children didn't have anything to do with their quest to seek evidence on ARod so he wasn't concerned with them. Which kind of runs counter to the whole "Think of the children" thing.

The anti-PED crusaders are ok with this?

The testing program is one thing. "Hey, you failed a test, you're suspended unless you can successfully challenge it." But actively pursuing a player by paying people large sums of money under the table which may be going to further their criminal enterprises; providing safe harbor for a drug dealer who may have been dealing to children; impersonating cops; intimidating witnesses... This is what MLB should be doing?

the roster seems a non-issue. even if not suspended arod is 130 games. Jeter needs a full time sub. so if you can afford it you already know you need an essentially full time infielder. Also, given age talent and lux tax, they surely know that if arod is suspended or hurt for the full year that they are pretty much sunk.

So far it appears that (1) MLB handed off $125,000 in a bag to a criminal who it appears stole the evidence MLB was paying for and MLB didn't report this payment to the government, and (2) MLB got into bed with Bosch who may have been dealing drugs to children, with Manfred testifying that the allegations of Bosch dealing to children didn't have anything to do with their quest to seek evidence on ARod. Which kind of runs counter to the whole "Think of the children" thing.

The real tragedy is I have no Centaur joke for this. I keep trying to think of one and coming up empty. The closest I got was "the best lawyer will win, you know the one with the most horsepower," but that doesn't really work. Sigh.

Jeter's option is interesting. $8 mil with a $3 mil buyout (via Cot's) but bonuses based on how he did in award voting. His coming in 7th instead of 6th saved the Yankees $2 mil on the 2014 pay, his one silver slugger added $1.5 mil, thus the players option is now a $9.5 mil option vs $3 mil buyout. So if Jeter feels he can get over $6.5 mil on the open market he should say no thanks to the option, otherwise he should say 'yes' to it. Given he only played 17 games with a 51 OPS+ last year I'd say take the option but only after trying to get the Yankees to add another (player option) year to it.

"The testing program is one thing. "Hey, you failed a test, you're suspended unless you can successfully challenge it." But actively pursuing a player by paying people large sums of money under the table which may be going to further their criminal enterprises; providing safe harbor for a drug dealer who may have been dealing to children; impersonating cops; intimidating witnesses... This is what MLB should be doing?"

It's right out of George Steinbrenner's play book. The kind of stuff a different MLB suspended him for.

(1) MLB handed off $125,000 in a bag to a criminal who it appears have stolen the evidence MLB was paying for and MLB didn't report this payment to the government,

But better (according to at least one news story), the guy videotaped the payoff and sold that video to AROD for $200,000.* Dude (allegedly) broke into a car, stole a box of documents, made over $300,000.

I'm in the wrong line of work. The nuns never told me being a sleazeball paid so well. Sure, the Jesuits hinted at it but implied I needed a law degree to make that kind of money as a sleazeball.

*OK, it was probably a digital recording of some sort although I like the idea of somebody having to hunt up a VCR for the hearing.

Francesa is not too good at this whole "investigative reporting" thing. During the interview with O'Keefe of the Daily News last week, Francesa unwittingly revealed his source of the hearing transcripts: he said that someone from ARod's camp gave them to him. I was shocked to hear him reveal his source, although it was in the heat of battle so I'm not sure he even realized he did it. After the interview he more calmly stated - without referencing his earlier comments -- that the stuff was simply waiting for him when he got into work, and he didn't know who had given it to him.

Now today he opened his show by saying that people have said that he revealed his source, and "that simply isn't true, I didn't do it, I still don't know who gave it to me, the stuff was sitting here when I got here."

He may not have meant to reveal his source the other day, or he may simply have misspoken and didn't actually know where the stuff had come from, but he definitely said it came from ARod's camp.

This will no doubt become relevant later when MLB uses Francesa's comments to assert that ARod violated the confidentiality provisions.

(1) MLB handed off $125,000 in a bag to a criminal who it appears stole the evidence MLB was paying for and MLB didn't report this payment to the government...... I wonder what their internal process was for that.

Francesa has stated that, even not having seen the evidence, he assumes ARod used.

Yes, quite a full throated defense there.

Francesa has simply pushed back against the disparate treatment of ARod and the magnitude of ARod's suspension, wanting to wait to see what the evidence is before he concludes that both of these were warranted. Quite a reasonable perspective. But it says something about people like you that you find it extremely pro-ARod.

Technically, I supposed the arbitrator shouldn't, at least until he's heard all of the evidence.

Eh, he can assume whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't let the assumptions influence his actual decision. It's not uncommon to here jurors basically say 'We assume he is guilty, but the prosecution didn't prove it, therefore we find him not guilty'.